Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 13:38 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
> ke.
>> Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete
>> -common
>> in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage.
>
> I was not clear, sorry.
>
> In that case "documentation" is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that
> includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use
> in bitmap image form, and the § that says "oh, and BTW, the font is ©
> X and released under the OFL"
Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the
packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here.
It's not -doc because
1. the common packages has also a technical role as owner of common
directory
2. several font packages put more than just doc in it (core font
indexes, etc)
3. and anyway that's just a name, so please everyone take a break and
not start another bike-shedding stage. If you want to comment comment on
the technical spec templates, I've taken enough grief over renamings
others inflicted on me I won't support in any way a new renaming
crusade.
I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make
sense for
megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case.
I can't think of a single srpm in the repository where sans and serif
are updated in lockstep at the same coverage (or style) level, except
perhaps liberation (and I wouldn't expect this state to survive any
serious community contribution). So in theory, I may agree with you, but
in practice, sans and serif have different lives.
And even if there were some, I wouldn't want to introduce exceptions
that induce documentation and maintenance burdens just to make it a
little prettier. Brutal simple same rules for everyone is much easier on
packagers.
--
Nicolas Mailhot